Blog » ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS IN HUNGARY – PART I - GENERAL RULES
ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS IN HUNGARY – PART I - GENERAL RULES
31 October 2018
What are the basic procedural principles of arbitration proceedings in Hungary? To which extent are the parties free to choose procedural rules? What is the applicable law and is there any time limit to deliver the arbitral award? We address among others these question in this article.
General procedural principles
The Act LX of 2017 on Arbitration (“Arbitration Act”) sets forth the following basic procedural principles:
- the parties shall be provided with equal treatment and each party shall be given the possibility to submit his case (“equal treatment”)
- The parties are free to choose the rules governing the procedure, within the limits set forth by the Arbitration Act (“determination of procedural rules”)
Procedural rules - Limited freedom
While the equal treatment is an absolute principle, the party autonomy in relation with the determination of procedural rules is limited, and the following order of priority applies
- the parties cannot disregard mandatory rules of the Arbitration Act (e.g. impartiality and independence of arbitrators; setting aside as non-waivable remedy etc.). These provisions are always applicable to the arbitration procedure
- in matters not governed by mandatory provisions, the parties can freely determine the procedural rules. This frequently takes place by adopting institutional rules, like the Rules of Procedure of the Permanent Arbitration Court (“Arbitration Court”) of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (HCCI) (“Rules of Procedure”)
- in matters not governed by the rules chosen by the parties, the non-mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act applies
- finally, the arbitration tribunal can fill the gaps to its best knowledge, if it is necessary (e.g. in relation with taking of evidences. etc.).
Below we summarise the most important procedural rules based on the Arbitration Act and on the Rules of Procedures
Place and Language
The parties may freely agree on the venue of the arbitration. When no such agreement is made, the venue of the arbitration shall be determined by the arbitration panel by taking account the circumstances of the case.
The parties are also free to choose the language of the procedure; in the absence of that the arbitration panel shall determine the language or languages. The Rules of Procedure provides that in the absence of language chosen by the parties, until the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the language of communication with the Arbitration Court shall be the Hungarian or English or German. In case the language of the arbitration is not one of the above languages, the costs of translations shall be equally advanced by the parties.
The Arbitration Act does not determine the maximum length of the arbitration procedure. The Rules of Procedure provides that the arbitral tribunal shall to the extent possible close the proceedings within six months from its constitution, which is a “soft-law” obligation.
Applicable law to the merits of the dispute
The arbitral tribunal shall resolve the legal dispute in line with the provisions of the law chosen for deciding the disputed issues on the merits, which means the substantive law of the relevant state, not including the international private law rules thereof.
In the absence of choice of law by the parties, the applicable substantive law shall be determined by the arbitration tribunal on the basis of the international private law rules that it considers to be applicable.
According to the Rules of Procedures, the arbitral tribunal may decide “ex aequo et bono” or as “amiable compositeur” only in cases where the parties have expressly authorised it to do so. The arbitral tribunal shall decide on the merits in accordance with the provisions of the contract between the parties, if any, and shall take into account the relevant trade usages applicable to the transaction.
Decision on competence
The arbitral tribunal shall decide on its own competence, including any objection concerning the making and validity of the arbitration court contract. In this respect, the arbitration court stipulation constituting a part of the contract shall be regarded as an agreement independent of the other stipulations of the contract.
Waiver of objection
It is important, that a party that has knowledge of the fact that any provision of the Arbitration Act allowing the parties different agreement or any stipulations of the arbitration agreement has not been satisfied and continues to take part in the proceedings without notifying his objection owing to such omission immediately, or if a deadline for this purpose has been set, within such deadline, then such party shall be considered as having waived the right of objection. This article guarantees the speed and flexibility of the process.
ONLINE SALE OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS WITHOUT BORDERS? LUXEMBURG RULED
Cross-border online sale of medicinal products is a recurring issue before the Court of Justice of the European Union. This is no coincidence, as trade in medicines is a strictly regulated area in all Member States, which can easily conflict with the EU principle of freedom to provide services, and in the end, the "price" of excessive national restrictions is borne by the consumers. In our article, we summarize the recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the limitation of the principle.Read more »
HOW REPORTING OF EMPLOYEE-TRAININGS HAS CHANGED FROM SEPTEMBER 2020 IN HUNGARY?
From September 2020 the rules, which regulate the status of the adult educators and the organisation of adult educations have changed. There are significantly more educations, which are considered as adult education and performing an adult education entails a lot more obligation. The changes affect almost every employer who organises certain kind of educations for its employees. We summarize the most important changes concerning the adult education.Read more »
LUXEMBOURG RULED: MESSI DRIBBLED PAST EVEN THE EUROPEAN TRADEMARK OFFICE
Messi hit the legal news again, this time not because of his tax issues. In September, the match between the EUIPO and the world-famous football player, which was ongoing since 2011, finally ended. Messi won the match, as the European Court of Justice ruled that because of his significant reputation, his name can be registered as a trademark despite the fact that it is similar to several earlier trademarks, which is otherwise a ground for exclusion. In our short article, we summarise the details of the case and the legal significance of the decision.Read more »